Você está na página 1de 16

th

26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT


FRAMEWORK FOR ROAD TRANSPORTATION ASSET
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Gunarathna W.P.H, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Rayya Hassan, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Julia Lamborn, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

ABSTRACT
There is a growing need to embrace sustainability principles in asset management practice
within road transportation organizations. Emerging climate change, resource shortages,
financial limitations and a dramatic increase in energy costs are creating challenges in
evaluating sustainability at each level of the asset management process.

This paper presents a systematic approach (a Framework) for integrating sustainability into road
asset management using performance measures. A key feature of this approach is that it moves
away from the traditional approach of road asset management that is concerned with physical
assets, and instead promotes a holistic view of the tangible and intangible assets related to road
transport. Additionally, the sustainability evaluation has been extended to cover six relevant
dimensions including economic, financial, technological, social, corporate and environmental.

The proposed framework can be used to develop outcome measures and process measures
based on the agencys requirements and data availability. The outcome measures can be used
to evaluate sustainability performance of the overall Road Transportation Asset Management
(RTAM) practice and the process measures can be used for performance evaluation at each
level of the RTAM practice. This paper also presents a proposal for the development of
outcome- based and process-based sustainability indices relevant to each of the six
sustainability dimensions that are used to evaluate sustainable performance of RTAM practice.

INTRODUCTION
Road transportation agencies play a significant role in providing highways and other
infrastructure for communities to facilitate efficient movement of goods and people. In the last
two decades, they have been facing a challenging task of balancing efficient services with
limited resources and at the same time addressing road transport-related negative impacts on
the environment. The Road Transportation Asset Management (RTAM) plays a major role in
providing sustainable services while responding to the emerging challenges. These challenges
include both external influences from external factors (e.g. global climate changes, resource
shortages etc.) and internal influences within the organization (e.g. financial limitation, lack of
leadership and professional staff etc.). The challenges are creating a global need for the
integration of a sustainability concept within the RTAM process.

The main aim of this study is to develop an assessment framework that is flexible and
applicable to transport agencies for evaluating sustainability performance of the RTAM practice.
This starts with integrating the sustainability concept into the asset management cycle using
performance measures. These identified measures have been used to develop outcome- based
(objective) and process-based (subjective) indices for assessing sustainability in RTAM practice.
Both of these are generic and they can be used by any road organization based on their
requirements and data availability

The scope of this study is not limited to the conventional road asset management concept of
minimizing whole of life cycle cost of physical assets. It addresses the sustainability of all the

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 1


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

assets of a system, including the physical, human, financial, information and intangible assets
that are important aspects of an integrated RTAM system. The proposed methodology adopts a
six dimensional (environmental, social, economic, corporate, financial, and technological)
sustainability concept for RTAM that is capable of addressing rising sustainability issues in asset
management which are not explicitly addressed by the conventional sustainability concepts.

INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPT INTO THE RTAM


PROCESS
A considerable number of published research studies cover the subjects of sustainable
transport and road transport asset management. However, none of them explicitly address the
implementation of sustainability within the asset management framework or how to measure the
sustainability performance of asset management practice. The aim of this section is to present
the systematic approach adopted in this study to integrate sustainability principles into the
RTAM process. It starts with the definition adopted here for sustainability and road asset
management.

Definition for asset management


The definitions of Asset management and Transport Asset management adopted by many
road organizations vary and have changed over time. The majority of these definitions have
been limited in scope and have focused on life cycle management of the physical infrastructures
(Austroads 2009; OECD 2001; TAC 1999; State Government Victoria 2012; IIMM 2006). They
clearly reflect an emphasis on physical infrastructure but vary in that some consider physical
assets provision, operation, and disposal in addition to maintenance and upgrading. However,
generally all focus on achieving user and community needs, expected Level of Services (LOS)
and safer roads.

For this study, the British Standard Institute Publically Available Specification (BSI PAS) 55
definition has been adopted, which provides a more focused definition for quantifiable
businesses and services (Ouertani, Parlikad & Mcfarlane 2008).It states the following:
asset management is systematic and coordinated activities and practices through which
an organization optimally and sustainably manages its assets and asset systems, their
associated performance, risks, and expenditures over their life cycles for the purpose of
achieving its organizational strategic plan (Institute of Asset Management 2008)

The PAS 55 definition implies that there are four other categories of assets that have to be
managed in order to achieve the organizations strategic plan. The other categories are human
assets, financial assets, intangible assets, and information assets. These four asset categories
can be further explained as follows (Institute of Asset Management 2008)
Human assets category - Corporate assets such as leadership, organizations owners,
managers, employees, contractors and suppliers, motivation, communication, role and
responsibilities, knowledge, experience, leadership and team work.
Intangible assets - Social impacts, reputation, image, morality and constraints.
Financial assets - Life cycle cost, capital investment criteria, operation cost, and value of
asset performance.
Information assets- condition, performance, activity and cost opportunity assets.

Multidimensional sustainability for RTAM


The most common sustainability definition originates from the Brundtland commission definition
(Jeon & Amekudzi 2005). This defines sustainability development as Development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs (Word Commision of Environment and Development 1987). This definition
encompasses the holistic consideration of economic, social and ecological conditions usually
referred to as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (Elkington 1997).

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 2


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Different transportation agencies have adopted unique definitions of sustainable transportation


for their own sustainable initiatives (Gilbert 2005; Jeon 2007). For example, the Department of
Transport Main Road (DTMR), the state road agency of Queensland/ Australia, adopts a five
dimensional sustainability concept in their sustainability framework. These dimensions include
society, environment, our business, our stakeholders and our people (DTMR 2012).

Successful implementation of sustainability within the transport sector needs a proper


understanding of sustainability concepts and quantification related to transportation. Zietsman
and Rilett (2002) proposed a definition for sustainable development which addresses the basic
principles of sustainability related to transportation. These principles are described below and
were taken into account in all stages of this study, particularly in the development of the
sustainable performance measurement framework.
Intergenerational equity There should be an equal distribution of resources between
communities and generations to fulfill current and future requirements.
Multidimensionality Social equity, economic development and environmental stewardship
are interrelated and must be simultaneously addressed.
Dynamic It is necessary to adapt to the changing needs of societies and generations over
the time.
Continuum Sustainability is not represented by a discrete indication (sustainability and
unsustainability) and it should be integrated into each other by various degrees of
sustainability.

Sustainability principles need to be combined with key principles and attributes of asset
management for better sustainability performance. Since the definition of asset management
adopted in this study promotes a holistic view of all the systems assets, then sustainability of
RTAM performance can be considered multidimensional. Six sustainability dimensions are
proposed, including environmental, social, economic, financial, corporate and technological
domains. The definitions adopted herein for these dimensions are presented below. It is
important to have a working definition of sustainability in that it allows an organization to identify
key factors that should be invested in to achieve sustainable goals and the types of
performance measures that can be used to monitor progress (DTMR 2012; Pei et al. 2010).

Environmental sustainability It involves protecting natural resources, minimizing waste and


air pollution, and maintaining of a variety of species and habitat through the RTAM process. This
includes:
Minimizing resource consumption by improving material reuse and recycling, and by efficient
usage.
Limiting air pollution and noise pollution.
Minimizing waste accumulation.
Reducing the impact of transportation activities on the ecological system.

Social sustainability - It is the ability of a community to provide a safe and healthy


environment, while providing equitable and affordable services for their development. This
includes:
Providing a safe, secure and healthy environment.
Maintaining equitable opportunities within different social levels, and providing affordable
transport services.
Increasing community development by satisfying the basic accessibility needs of a society
and its individuals.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 3


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Economic sustainability - It is concerned with the productivity of the asset systems for efficient
services, improvement and economic development. This includes:
Building a transport system that is resilient in the face of climate change risks.
Providing efficient services.
Improving local development.
Providing an economically feasible and affordable transport system

Corporate sustainability - It is concerned with stakeholder satisfaction and the implementation


of a sustainable culture within the organization. This includes:
Staff motivation and improvement of a target workforce within the organization.
Valuing and developing the competence and capabilities of staff.
Enhancing leadership and stakeholder relationships.
Implementing sustainable practices and regularly assessing cultures within the organization

Financial sustainability - It is focused on investing in long and short-term financial needs for
achieving target assets performance. This includes:
Forecasting different financial needs and reserve funding
Maximizing value for money for all stakeholders.
Minimizing unexpected financial shock due to disaster situation.

Technological sustainability - It is focused on advancing technology in the asset management


system and minimizing the use of obsolete technology. This includes:
Partnering with client and key stakeholders to create or find innovative products and
processes for sustainable transport solutions.
Improving the technological capabilities of an organizations assets.

Integrating sustainability concepts with RTAM framework


To integrate principles of sustainability into the asset management process, the following steps
were followed:
All processes and relevant tasks of RTAM practice were identified
The risks associated with each task due to internal or external drivers were identified
For each identified risk, the relevant sustainability dimension was established and suitable
performance indicators were identified.

To achieve the above, Austroads integrated asset management framework was used as a guide
(Austroads 2009). It comprises three main parts including strategic planning, asset
management actions, and performance feedback stages which are subdivided into seven
phases including defined objectives (phase 1), forming asset strategies (phase 2), developing
investment programme (phase 3), identifying asset requirements (phase 4), implementing work
programme (phase 5), auditing (phase 6) and reviewing (Phase 7) (Austroads 2009). Austroads
reports (Austroads 2002, 2009) were used to identify all processes and tasks involved in these
phases and their interactions. Possible internal drivers (e.g. knowledge gap, resistance to
change) and external drivers (e.g. climate change, legislation requirements) and associated
risks that may influence the different processes/tasks were identified. This helped in
establishing sustainability dimensions relevant to each phase.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 4


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY


PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF RTAM PRACTICE
Similar to the definition for sustainability, there is no standard framework for evaluating progress
towards sustainability. Different organizations have used different approaches; some of them
used common themes and sustainability dimensions. The approach and methodology proposed
herein for developing a framework for sustainable performance measurement for RTAM
combines concepts from the following three frameworks. The theme based/impact based
framework described in Hart (2006), Jeon & Amekudzi (2005), and Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-
Palombo (2009), the goal oriented framework described in Nichols, Garrick & Atkinson-
Palombo (2009) and the Influence based framework described in Jeon & Amekudzi (2005) and,
Pei et al. (2010).

Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual framework for developing performance measurement
for RTAM. To simplify the complexity of the performance measurement development process
the seven phased asset management process is represented by the four focus areas presented
below.
1. Planning (L1) - phases 1 and 2
2. Programming (L2) - Phases 3 and 4
3. Implementation (L3) - phase 5
4. Operation and Performance feedback (L4) - Phases 6 and 7.

This helps to minimize complexity in defining performance measures relevant to the different
levels of the asset management cycle. This classification is similar to the Austroads asset
management framework classification, except that their strategic planning process has been
divided into two phases as planning (L1) and programming (L2). The fundamental components
of the framework outline the process for developing sustainability performance measures in five
steps as described below. These five steps represented as a top down approach in figure 1.
Step 1: Define sustainability dimensions - The conceptual framework defines the six
dimensions of sustainability, including economic, social, environmental, corporate, financial
and technological. The theme-based framework was used to define the multidimensional
sustainability concept.
Step2: Define sustainability goals - In this step, each sustainability dimension was defined by
the expected common sustainability goals. A goal-oriented framework was used to
interconnect sustainability dimensions with relevant sustainability goals. The defined goals
should be achievable and well balanced and they need to cover the basic principles of
sustainability and asset management. A comprehensive literature review resulted in
identifying a set of 12 generic goals for transportation agencies to address the principles of
asset management sustainability. The sustainability dimensions and proposed respective
goals are listed in table 1.
Step 3: Define sustainability objectives - The goals were further deconstructed into
achievable objectives that must be fully associated with the organizations strategic plan. The
objectives are more specific than the goals and lay the foundation for links with the
performance indicators. The proposed objectives are common to all focus areas of the asset
management cycle.
Step 4: Define performance indicators - In this step, each objective was further classified into
performance indicators. The indicators are used to interlink common objectives and
performance measures at different operational levels within the transportation organization.
The indicator refers to variables used in monitoring performance, which become
performance measures when compared against benchmark values.

Step 5: Define performance measures for different operational levels - Each indicator was
linked by one or more performance measure for the different focus areas of asset
management (L1, L2, L3, and L4). An influence-based framework was used to define
Performance measures for the different levels. Ideal performance measures are easily

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 5


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

understood, providing a clear indication of movement towards an established goal, and can
be tracked using accessible and available data. The selection of appropriate performance
measures is an important and challenging task and it can be applied over different
timeframes (long term, medium term and short term), for different types of analysis
(planning, operational or strategic), different levels of analysis (project, corridor, network or
regional), and relevant sustainability dimensions (Cambridge Systematics and PB Consult
2006; Ramani et al. 2012). For example, asset management at the strategic level is focused
on the long term planning of each asset group, and tactical asset management is used to
determine which assets should be replaced in the programming level (Cambridge
Systematics & Meyer 2007; Marlow D 2008 ). Therefore, the applicability of a sustainability
indicator needs to be carefully considered at the different focus levels, and measures need
to be changed accordingly.

Table 1: Defined goals for the six RTAM sustainability dimensions

Sustainability Dimensions Goals


EN1 Conserve energy and natural resources
EN2 Minimize emission and noise pollution
Environment (EN) EN3 Minimize waste accumulation
EN4 Enhanced bio diversity and proper functioning of eco-
system
EC1 Maximize economic productivity by improving assets
Economic (EC) efficiency
EC2 Ensure economic Development
SO1 Enhance public health, safety and security
Social (SO)
SO2 Ensure equity and provide affordable service
CO1 Enhance workforce wellbeing and development
Corporate (CO)
CO2 Improve sustainable culture within organization
Technological (TE) TE1 Ensure technological advancement
Financial (FI) FI1 Improve organization financial affordability

A comprehensive review of the literature resulted in identifying a large number of performance


measures (540) that are relevant to the four focus areas for each of the proposed twelve
sustainability goals.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 6


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

SUSTAINABILITY COMPOSITE INDEX

STEP 1 Environment Social Economic Financial Technological Corporate

STEP 2 Goal 1 (EN1) Goal 2 (EN2)

STEP 3 Objective 1 (EN11) Objective 2 (EN12)

Feedback loop
STEP 4 Indicator 1 (EN111) Indicator 2 (EN112)

Performance measure Planning (L1)

Performance measure Programming (L2)

STEP 5
Performance measure Implementation (L3)

Performance measure Performance Feedback (L4)

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for developing performance measurement for sustainable RTAM.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 7


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT, SELECTION AND


COMPOSITE INDICES DEVELOPMENT
Proposed methodology
Identified performance measures can be categorized as process, output and outcome
measures. The measures capture how agency action (process) can result in changes (output)
and these influence the sustainability goals (outcomes) (Ramani et al. 2012). The focus of the
outcome measures is more applicable for the sustainability measures as it is easy to illustrate
and understand the organizations progress towards the target sustainability goals. As a result,
most transport organizations within Australia have used outcome measures to report their
service achievements in financial year reports. The outcome measures can be quantified using
the objective assessment method and information can be easily disseminated to external and
internal stakeholders at different levels of the organization.

Better sustainability outcomes are always influenced by the organizations best practices and
underperforming conditions need to be assessed for improvements. The internal stakeholders
are more engaged and more responsible for assessing organization processes and practices
leading to the better sustainability outcomes. However, an organizations processes are difficult
to quantify using an objective assessment due to data unavailability and other practical
considerations. This project aims to assess sustainability at each level of the asset management
cycle and two evaluation methods have been proposed to assess outcomes and processes as
follows.
1. Develop the composite indices using outcome measures (objective approach) focused on
overall sustainability performance of the organization.
2. Develop the composite indices using a subjective approach focused on processes and best
practices at each focus level of the asset management cycle

Developing sustainability indices using outcome measures


Outcome measures development and selection

The developed measures compendium consists of a large number of measures relevant to the
different focus levels. To make the proposed method more practical in terms of data availability
simplification and application, the number of proposed measures needed to be minimized.
Following three criteria were used to prioritize and select optimum number of measures using a
measures compendium.
1. Select common measures for a particular indicator which can be used to measure
sustainability performance at the different focus levels.
2. Give priority to performance measures that have strong link to the defined sustainability
objectives.
3. Include performance measures that are currently being used to monitor and track an
agencys sustainability practice within Australia.

This approach leads to prioritising organizations outcome measures and is suitable for
assessing the overall sustainability performance of the RTAM practice. It can be used to
measure results or the impact of the organizations policies, programming, and infrastructure
decision on sustainability improvements in the organization as a whole. Table 2 provides an
example of selected outcome performance measures related to each sustainability dimension.
The example lists six sustainability dimensions in the first column and relevant goals, objectives,
indicators and performance measures in the second, third, fourth, and fifth column respectively.
Based on the level of the hierarchy in figure 1, appropriate symbols were used to illustrate
goals, objectives and indicators in table 2. Likewise, there were 45 outcome measures selected
from the compendium, which are feasible to quantify using available data and suitable models
used in practice.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 8


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Table 2: Example performance measures used for overall sustainability assessment in


RTAM practice

Sustainable Performance
Goals Objectives Indicator
dimensions measure
Road transport
Minimize related
Environmental emission and Reduce air Air quality greenhouse gas
(EN) noise pollution pollution (EN21) (EN211) emission (Co2
(EN2) tonnes per
capita)
Enhance public Improve safety
Fatal road
health, safety, and security
Social (SO) Safety (SO111) crashes (per 100
and security requirements
000 population)
(SO1) (SO11)
Maximizing Improve system
economic efficiency and Mobility / Travel
reduce Congestion
Economic (EC) productivity by time reliability
congestion indicator
improving asset (EC111)
efficiency (EC1) (EC11)
Staff motivation
and improve Capacity and
Improve quality target workforce capabilities of Employee
Corporate (CO)
of life (CO1) within work force turnover
organization (CO112)
(CO11)
Improve Funding
Improve financial Asset
organization availability for
Financial (FI) availability ( sustainability
financial gap renewal
FI12) ratio*
affordability (FI1) (FI121)
Improve
Ensure Funding
Technological Research and Financial support
technological allocation for
development (R& for R &D
(TE) advancement sustainability
D) opportunities (TE111)
(TE1) related R&D
(TE11)
Note* - Asset sustainability ratio= (asset replacement expenditure/Annual depreciation expenditure)

Developing composite indices

To provide a quantitative basis for assessing sustainability using performance measures, multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) method is proposed for this project. The basic steps required
in this methodology is quantification, scaling and weighting of individual measures to obtain
composite indicators for each sustainability dimension (Ramani et al. 2009). Figure 2 shows the
proposal for development of the environmental sustainability index using outcome- based
assessment. The same process is applied for each dimension and it involves the following
steps.
1. Selected performance measures are quantified.
2. Outcome performance measures are scaled using utility functions developed for each
measure (Ramani, Quadrifoglio & Zietsman 2010).
3. Scaled performance measures are then weighted by the score/ weight of the relevant
objectives to produce a score for each goal. Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) has been
used to develop weights for each objective considering their importance in achieving
assigned sustainability goals (Saaty 1995; Su & Hassan 2007).

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 9


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

4. The score of each goal is then multiplied by the goals assigned weight. The environmental
sustainability index (ENSI out ) is the sum of all weighted scores. Same procedure has been
used to assign weights for each sustainability goals in step 3. All six sustainability indices are
combined to develop composite sustainability index as described later.

Environment sustainability index (ENSI) out

Apply Goals Weighting /score

Goal 1 (EN1) Goal 1 (EN2) Goal 1 (EN3) Goal 1 (EN4) Goal

Apply Objectives Weighting

Reduce air pollution (EN21) Reduce Noise pollution (EN22) Objective

Greenhouse gas emission Percentage of the network with Performance


(Co2 equivalent tonnes per measured values below the measure
capita) applicable threshold noise level.

Figure 2: Environmental sustainability index development using outcome measures.

Developing sustainability indices for assessing practices and


processes
The different focus areas (planning, programming, implementation and, operation and feedback)
and their processes can contribute to sustainability performance of the agency in different ways.
As sustainability performance of a process or practice cannot be quantified, a subjective
assessment is proposed. This approach involves using subjective rating to rank the agencys
practice in addressing the sustainability objectives relevant to the different sustainability goals.

The process assessment is a subjective approach and it has been adopted by most of the
sustainability evaluation tools used in practice (FHWA 2013; Greensroads 2012; ISCA 2012; ISI
2011; NYSDOT 2013). For this study, it is proposed to use sets of questions to evaluate an
organization process relevant to the 12 sustainability goals. Identified performance measures
(from the compendium) and sustainable best practices are used as foundation for developing a
list of questions related to process assessment. Table 3 provides example questions relevant to
the objective EN21 (reduce air pollution). In table 3, example questions and relevant focus
levels are listed in first and second column respectively.

Table 3: Example questions for process evaluation

Question Related to EN 21- Reduce Air pollution Focus level

Air quality improvement has been incorporated into organizations vision Focus level 1
Emission analysis has been incorporated into the programme prioritization
Focus level 2
process

Measures have been implemented to minimise adverse effect on the air


Focus level 3
quality during construction and maintenance.

Regular vehicle emission inspection programmes are implemented and


Focus level 4
undertaken at regular time intervals

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 10


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Developing composite indices

The index development approach is demonstrated graphically in figure 3 using environmental


sustainability as an example. The proposed bottom-up approach for determining a score for an
agencys practice in addressing each sustainability dimension is described below.
1. The processes in each of the four focus levels namely; planning, programming,
implementation, and operation and feedback are assessed using subjective assessment.
This consists of a number of questions related to addressing each of the objectives relevant
to each goal of the sustainability dimension considered. These are scored using one or
more suitable rating scales. For the example in Figure 3 the performance of each focus
area is scored considering how well the organization has performed in achieving
sustainability objectives (EN21, EN22) which are related to the sustainability goal (EN2).

2. The combined scores of each focus area are then normalized and multiplied by their
assigned weights. The weights of focus areas can be determined using the analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) considering their importance in achieving each sustainability goal
(Saaty 1995; Su & Hassan 2007).

3. Finally, the Environmental Sustainability Index ((ENSI Process ) can be calculated as the sum
of the products of the scores from step 2 for each goal by the weight of that goal (e.g. EN1,
EN2, EN3, and EN4). The weights of goals for each dimension can be also determined
using AHP pairwise comparisons considering their potential contributions to the dimension
(Su & Hassan 2007). These approaches are applied to each dimension separately and
combined into one composite index as described in the next section.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 11


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Environment sustainability index (ENSI) Process

Apply goal weighting /score

Goal (EN3) Goals


Goal (EN1) Goal (EN2) Goal (EN4)

Apply focus area weighting /score

Planning Operation and Focus area


Programming Implementation
(Focus level 1) feedback
(Focus level 2) (Focus level 3)
(Focus level 4)

Process evaluation
Question related to Question related to Question related to
Question related to
Objective (EN21)
Objective (EN21) Objective (EN21) Objective (EN21) Evaluation of each process is based on
ranking agencys performance within
each focus area (using a suitable scale)
in addressing each of the objectives
relevant to each and every goal related to
Question related to Question related to Question related to Question related to every sustainability dimension).
Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22) Objective (EN22)

Figure 3: Environmental sustainability index development using process measures.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 12


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

DEVELOPING A COMPOSITE SUSTAINABILITY INDEX


Both outcome-based and process-based Sustainability Indices can be used for developing a
relevant composite index as shown in figure 4. All six indices can be combined into one index
by multiplying their final scores by the relevant weights. The AHP can be used to assign weights
for each dimension taking into consideration their importance in achieving RTAM sustainability.
Both the outcome based composite sustainability index (CSI Out ) and process based composite
sustainability index (CSI process ) can be used to compare the agencys performance towards
sustainability.

The process measures can be recommended in circumstances where data is not available for
quantitative analysis and they can be used to determine the influence of the organization
policies, strategies and higher management decisions in relation to sustainability performances
in advance.

Apply weight of each dimension (W i)

Figure 4: Composite index development.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK


This paper describes the development of sustainability assessment framework for RTAM
practice. It adopts a holistic view of RTAM practice and includes six defined dimensions of
sustainability to address emerging challenges. The proposed approach for the performance
measures development, selection, and composite indices development are generic and can be
adopted by any road agency. This paper briefly outlined selection and development of outcome
measures and process measures which are core aspects of the sustainability assessment
process. The outcome measures can be used to assess overall sustainability performance of
the organization and process measures can be used to assess sustainability at every level of
the RTAM process. Further, six composite indices development process are explained for each
outcome and process measures separately.

Special care should be exercised when assigning weights in each step of the composite index
development. However, sensitivity analysis needs to be done to improve the accuracy of the
weighting process. That will minimize negative effects of the indices value on the decision
making. The outcome measures and process measures however, can vary across agencies
depending on availability of relevant data and information and acceptance by staff. Therefore,
the same measures and conditions need to be considered when comparing sustainability
performance of two different road organizations.

The next phase of this research project would be to collect data needed for developing the
different measures and to test the frameworks and the proposed approaches for developing the
different indices. These include process/practice-based and outcome-based indices and
relevant composite indices. Target values for each measure would also need to be determined
together with scales for the different indices of sustainability dimensions. These processes will
be undertaken in consultation with the relevant road authorities.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 13


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

REFERENCES
Austroads 2002, Integrated Asset Management Guidelines for Road Networks, Austroads Inc.
Australia.

Austroads, 2009, Guide to asset management (part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7and 8) Austroads Inc.


Australia.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc & Meyer, MD., 2007, US Domestic scan programme: Best
practices in transporation asset management: NCHEP 20-68. The AASTHO and Transportation
officialsFHA, USA .

Cambridge Systematises, Inc.PB Consult, Inc. & Texas TeTransportation Institute. Performance
measures and target fo rtransportation Asset Management, Transportation research Board,
Washingtoon, D.C. 2006.

Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), 2012. Sustainable framework, Queensland
Government.

Elkington, J. 1997, Cannibals with Forks: The triple Bottom line of 21st century Business: New
Society Publishers, Gabrioal Island.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013, Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation


Sustainability Tool (INVEST). 2013, from
<https://www.sustainablehighways.org/120/learn.html>, accessed 21/5/ 2013

Gilbert, R., 2005, Defining sustainable transportation, The Centre for Sustainable
Transportation, Canada, 2005.
http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Defining_Sustainable_2005.pdf, Accessed 12/9/2011.

Hart, M. 2006, Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (Second Edition). Sustainable


Measures, West Hartford, CT,

Infrastructure sustainability council of Australia Infrastructure Sustainability rating tool: Version 1.


2012, from < http://www.isca.org.au/is-rating-scheme/is-overview/is-rating-tool>.Accessed
12/4//2012

Institute of Asset Management (IAM) British Standard Institute (BSI). 2008, Publically Available
Specification (PAS) 55-1:2008 Part 1: Specification for the optimized management of physical
assets. UK.

Jeon, C. M. and Amekudzi, A. 2005, Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems:


Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(1): pp. 31-50

Jeon, CM. 2007, Incorporating sustainability into transportation planning and decision making:
Definitions, performance measures, and evaluation thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Marlow, D.R., 2008, Sustainbility based asset management, Water service associatin, National
resarch FLAGSHIP: Water for healthy country. CSIRO, Australia, 2008.

New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works
Engineering Australia. 2006. International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM): version
3.0, N.Z. Association of Local Government NZ Inc. (INGENIUM).

Nichols, J., N. Garrick, and C. Atkinson-Palombo. 2009, Framework for Developing Indicators of
Sustainability for Transportation Planning. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 14


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publications. Asset


management for the road sector. OECD Publications Service, Paris, 2001

Ouertani, M.Z., A.K. Parlikad, and D. Mcfarlane. 2008. Towards an approach to select an asset
information management strategy. International Journal of Computer Science and Applications,
Techno-mathematics Research Foundation, Vol. 5, issue 3b, pp. 25-44.

Pei, YL, Amekudzi, AA, Meyer, MD, Barrella, EM & Ross, CL 2010, 'Performance Measurement
Frameworks and Development of Effective Sustainable Transport Strategies and Indicators',
Transportation research record: journal of the transportation research board no. 2163, pp. 73-
80.

Ramani, T, Zietsman, J, Eisele, W, Rosa, D, Spillane, D & Bochner, B 2009, Developing


sustainable transportation performance measures for TXDOTs strategic plan: technical report,

Ramani, T.L, Quadrifoglio, L & Zietsman, J. 2010, 'Accounting for nonlinearity in the MCDM
approach for a transportation planning application', IEEE transactions on engineering
management, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 702-710.

Ramani, TL, Zietsman, o, Gudmundsson, H, Hall, RP & Marsden, G., 2012, 'Framework for
sustainability assessment by transportation agencies', Transportation research record, vol.
2242, no. -1, pp. 9-18.

Saaty, T.L., 1995, Decision making for Leaders: The analytical hierarchy process for decision in
a complex world. RWS publication, Pittsburgh.

State government Victoria ,2012, Asset Management principles: Part 1 from


<http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/WebObj/AssetManagementSeriesPart1/$File/A
ssetManagementSeriesPart1.pdf >.Accessed 24/7/2012,

Su, M. and R. Hassan, 2007. Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Road Asset
Management- User Manual, Austroads Inc. 2007.

The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). 2012, Envision sustainable infrastructure rating
system, from
http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/portal/projects/assessment/GuidanceManual.pdf,
accessed 11/5/2013.

The New York Department of Transport 2013, Green LITES Project Design Certification
Programme, from https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites Accessed 21.2.2013,

Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1999, Primer on Highway asset management


system.

University of Washington and Green road Foundation. 2012, Greenroads,


<https://www.greenroads.org/1429/greenroads-manual.html>.Accessed 5th April 2012

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987, Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1987.

Zietsman, J & Rilett, LR, 2002. Susutainble transportation conceptualization and performance
measures. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was undertaken as part of the Performance Measures for a Sustainable Asset
Management Practice research project sponsored by the DTMR, Queensland. The authors
would like to acknowledge Michelle Baran and, Yu Sang for their valuable contribution and
guidance for this project.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 15


th
26 ARRB Conference Research driving efficiency, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Gunarathna W.P.H BSc. (Civil) (Hons), MSc (Civil)

PhD candidate, Swinburne University of Technology.

W.P.H. Gunarathna graduated as a Civil Engineer from University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka with a
BSc. (Hons) degree in 2007. After graduation, he earned a graduate research assistantship to
read for his master's degree in pavement modelling at Transportation Engineering division,
University of Moratuwa. Gunarathna graduated with a MSc. (Civil Engineering) in 2008. He was
recruited as a lecturer in same department soon after his graduation. During that period, he was
conducted many research and consultancy projects as a Highway Engineering specialist and
has conducted many workshops and training programs in Highway Engineering for Engineers
and Technologists. In addition, He worked as a visiting lecturer at General Sir John Kotelawala
Defence University -Sri Lanka from 2008 to 2010. Gunarathna has since returned to Swinburne
University and is currently reading for his PhD in developing performance measures for
sustainable road transport asset management.

Rayya H. Hassan PhD Civil Eng., MEng Construction Management, BSc Civil Eng.

Senior Lecturer Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology

Rayya worked at Swinburne University of Technology (SUT), Civil Engineering, from 1998 to
2005 in different academic roles. From 2005 to 2008, she worked at the ARRB Group Ltd as a
senior then as a Principal Research Engineer in the area of Asset Management. While working
at ARRB, she was responsible for managing a number of Austroads research projects. In 2008
she re-joined SUT as a Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering.

A/ Porf. Julia Lamborn BE(SIT), GradDipChemEng (SIT), MEng (SUT), PhD (SUT), FIEAust
CPEng.

Associate Dean (Learning Innovation), Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology

Julia Lamborn is the Associate Dean (Education) for the Faculty of Engineering and Industrial
Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology, where she has been since 1990. Prior to that,
she was the cooling tower thermal design engineer at the State Electricity Commission of
Victoria for 10 years. Her main fields of interest are landfill gas modelling, hazardous waste
landfills, waste management, environmental effects analysis, environmental engineering,
engineering education and renewable energy. She is very active within Engineers Australia and
currently is the immediate past chair of the Environmental College and is a member of the
National Congress.

Copyright Licence Agreement

The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 26th ARRB Conference,
granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:

publish the work in printed format


publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.

The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works

The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 16

Você também pode gostar